Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

FNDX vs XLF: how they differ

FNDX and XLF hold 13% of their weight in the same names, and FNDX returned more over the year.

Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF and State Street(R) Financial Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FNDX and XLF hold 13% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FNDX and XLF both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFNDXXLF
Berkshire Hathaway Inc1.41%12.10%
JPMorgan Chase & Co1.38%11.57%
Bank of America Corp0.87%4.91%
Citigroup Inc0.85%3.15%
Wells Fargo & Co0.68%3.34%
Goldman Sachs Group Inc/The0.58%3.94%
Morgan Stanley0.44%3.31%
Capital One Financial Corp0.35%1.65%
Visa Inc0.33%7.51%
US Bancorp0.24%1.24%
American International Group Inc0.23%0.52%
Mastercard Inc0.22%5.47%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FNDXOnly in XLF
Apple Inc 4.64%Robinhood Markets Inc 1.05%
Intel Corp 2.57%Interactive Brokers Group Inc 0.51%
Alphabet Inc 2.38%Coinbase Global Inc 0.43%
Microsoft Corp 2.33%FactSet Research Systems Inc 0.11%
Exxon Mobil Corp 2.29%Erie Indemnity Co 0.08%
Alphabet Inc 1.90%
Amazon.com Inc 1.86%
Micron Technology Inc 1.60%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

FNDX and XLF on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FNDX
Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF
XLF
State Street(R) Financial Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerSchwabState Street
What it isFundamental U.S. Large CompanyFinancials
Total return, 1 year+26.1%+7.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+8.6 pts−9.9 pts
Expense ratio0.25%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50091.2%100.0%
Holdings73376

FNDX in plain words

FNDX is an index equity fund tracking the Fundamental U.S. Large Company. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +26.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.25% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 91% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 733 positions, with the top ten at 22.5%.

XLF in plain words

XLF is an index equity fund tracking the Financials. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 76 positions, with the top ten at 57.7%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FNDX or XLF?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FNDX returned +26.1% and XLF returned +7.6%, so FNDX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FNDX or XLF?
FNDX charges 0.25% a year and XLF charges 0.08%, so XLF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FNDX and XLF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of FNDX and 100% of XLF by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 13% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

FNDX against XLF, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, FNDX against XLF, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FNDX-XLF Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources